Case 8000485/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member D McDougall Tribunal Member J Gallacher Mr M Sangare v Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000485/2023
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Murphy Tribunal
- Venue
- the Glasgow Tribunal
- Panel members
- D McDougall, J Gallacher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member D McDougall Tribunal Member J Gallacher Mr M Sangare
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed all claims. On whistleblowing, it found the claimant's January 2023 complaints to his manager about a colleague's manner, and about copying passwords to a new server, did not amount to protected disclosures. It also found the claimant's email of 19 June 2023, although it disclosed information about team interactions and password practices, did not in the claimant's reasonable belief tend to show a breach of legal obligation or a health and safety risk, and was not made in the public interest.
On victimisation, the tribunal found the claimant did not do a protected act. His complaint on 12 January 2023 about the way a colleague had spoken to him did not allege discrimination or any Equality Act contravention, and his 19 June 2023 email likewise did not allege that any treatment was because of race or another protected characteristic.
On harassment related to race, the tribunal accepted that the claimant found three interactions with Jason White upsetting and unwanted. However, it found those interactions arose from Mr White's views about the claimant's work proposals and from Mr White's generally forthright communication style, not from the claimant's race. The tribunal noted evidence that Mr White spoke bluntly about and to white colleagues as well.
On direct race discrimination, including dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent's managers genuinely considered there to be performance concerns and escalated those concerns on that basis. It accepted that the claimant was shocked because concerns had not been clearly raised with him beforehand, but found that race played no part in the decisions of his managers or HR to commence the continued employment process or to dismiss him on 22 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | This covers both the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures and the complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures. The tribunal found the alleged disclosures on 12 January 2023 and 19 June 2023 were not protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the claimant did not do a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | This covers the direct race discrimination allegations, including the allegation that the dismissal was because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted some conduct by the colleague was unwanted, but found it was not related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
23 references- section 43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Limited v Geduld
- Soh v Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine
- Kraus v Penna PLC
- section 103A ERA 1996
- El-Megrisi v Azad University (IR) in Oxford
- Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd
- Croydon Health Services NHS Trust v Beatt
- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 23 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Anya v University of Oxford
- JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Chweidan
- Jiad v Byford
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Veolia Environmental Services UK v Gumbs
- Igen v Wong
- Beneviste v Kingston University
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.